Fruitzilla wrote:Ah right, but that kind of applies universally if you're looking for any kind of teacher.

That's why someone "receiving transmission" is really up in the air and to be taken with a grain of salt. In theory it should work as a quality control mechanism, but let's be honest, do you really think it works as it is supposed to?

Academic credentials are possibly a better indication of a person's quantified understanding of Buddhism. I don't say that because I'm a scholar myself, but simply because it seems to be the case most of the time. Academics who may not practice often display a superior understanding of basic Buddhadharma than a lot of practitioners. The latter might protest and say their understanding is based on practice, not mere books, and hence is superior, but at the end of the day the academic often makes a hell of a lot more sense (not always, but often I find this to be the case).

Generally speaking if you have a post-graduate degree from a recognized institution it indicates a certain level of competence, whereas "Dharma transmission" or formal sanction from a lineage is hit or miss. There are proponents of Zen who have formal transmission from some purported Zen master, yet don't even understand basic Buddhism, or even if they do they reject it outright rendering everything else they say on the subject just plain stupid nonsense.

shel wrote:As for Jundo's homogenized Dharma, it seems that at least you and Gregkavarnos are buying, plus whatever students he has.

Buying? First of all I am in Greece, we have no money in order to buy anything... especially overpriced American products. Secondly, you have no idea who I am so how can you possibly judge? You seriously believe the Mahayana Sutras werew written by the Buddha? Go for it! I personally am a Vajrayana practitioner but I do not buy the whole "the Buddha taught Vajrayana secretly to a handful of students that whipped it out when the time was ripe" BS, I am happy to accept teachings that are obviously the teachings of an enlightened being without them having to pretend they were the words of the Buddha. Ven Huinengs Platfrom Sutra is a perfect example, or the Madhyamaka teachings of Nagarjuna, etc... Many teachings inconsistent with the Dharma Seals have crept into the Buddhist Canon just coz somebody slapped: "Thus have I heard..." at the beginning of their fairytale. And I did not arrive at this conclusion after listening to three minutes of Jundo's video a couple of days ago. I remind you of my earlier statement:

... "Luckily" I had the advantage of reading both Sutra and Sutta before being introduced to Buddhist sectarian polemics (via e-sangha actually) and so had the benefit of seeing both sides before knowing there are two (or more) sides.

Now, like I said before, if you have an axe to gring with Mr. Jundo then go ahead and grind it, don't try to set up an "us and them" dichotomy though, especially where it does not exist. Rest assured that if Jundo says something that doesn't sit right with me then he won't be spared the rod!

We seem to have had a misunderstanding, Gregkavaronos. "Buying" is an expressions that is sometimes used where I live to mean being in agreement with. As you say, what Jundo says does indeed "sit right" with you.

Huseng wrote:Academic credentials are possibly a better indication of a person's quantified understanding of Buddhism. I don't say that because I'm a scholar myself, but simply because it seems to be the case most of the time. Academics who may not practice often display a superior understanding of basic Buddhadharma than a lot of practitioners. The latter might protest and say their understanding is based on practice, not mere books, and hence is superior, but at the end of the day the academic often makes a hell of a lot more sense (not always, but often I find this to be the case).

You do really. Scholars always have much more demanding criteria for what constitutes Buddhadharma and thus a much narrower frame for 'what makes sense'. Sometimes it's justified, but it basically leads to an excessively critical mind that most of a non-scholastic bend don't have. And also leads to missing out on potentially important stuff. There's stuff that becomes hard to recognise when you heart and mind aren't in proper sync when listening. And I say that from having a scholastic bent.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hellI would endure it for myriad lifetimes As your companion in practice" --- Gandavyuha Sutra

Huseng wrote:Academic credentials are possibly a better indication of a person's quantified understanding of Buddhism. I don't say that because I'm a scholar myself, but simply because it seems to be the case most of the time. Academics who may not practice often display a superior understanding of basic Buddhadharma than a lot of practitioners. The latter might protest and say their understanding is based on practice, not mere books, and hence is superior, but at the end of the day the academic often makes a hell of a lot more sense (not always, but often I find this to be the case).

You do really. Scholars always have much more demanding criteria for what constitutes Buddhadharma and thus a much narrower frame for 'what makes sense'. Sometimes it's justified, but it basically leads to an excessively critical mind that most of a non-scholastic bend don't have. And also leads to missing out on potentially important stuff. There's stuff that becomes hard to recognise when you heart and mind aren't in proper sync when listening. And I say that from having a scholastic bent.

I tend to agree. In my discipline (Alexander Technique) experential knowlegde trumps scholastic knowledge always and by far. From what I know of Buddhism it is the same. I couldn't imagine learning from someone who is an expert in tenet systems, but hasn't bother to go to the bottom of his own (tenet system).

Simon E. wrote:I have absolutely no dog in this fight...but it seems to me that any axes that are being ground are being ground by you Shel.

I merely offer Jundo the same critical eye that he offers Buddhist doctrine and his fellow teachers, etc. He just claimed in one of his last posts that some of his fellow teachers and their students are "the blind leading the blind." That's harsh. I would never say anything that harsh about him and his students. Yet I'm the one with an axe to grind?

Jundo has been banned from e-sangha and Zen Forum International, his priests are not recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association, and yet I'm the only one who is critical?

shel wrote:We seem to have had a misunderstanding, Gregkavaronos. "Buying" is an expressions that is sometimes used where I live to mean being in agreement with. As you say, what Jundo says does indeed "sit right" with you.

When people say "brought into" they generally mean "fell victim to" or was "sucked in by".

Huseng wrote:Academic credentials are possibly a better indication of a person's quantified understanding of Buddhism. I don't say that because I'm a scholar myself, but simply because it seems to be the case most of the time. Academics who may not practice often display a superior understanding of basic Buddhadharma than a lot of practitioners. The latter might protest and say their understanding is based on practice, not mere books, and hence is superior, but at the end of the day the academic often makes a hell of a lot more sense (not always, but often I find this to be the case).

You do really. Scholars always have much more demanding criteria for what constitutes Buddhadharma and thus a much narrower frame for 'what makes sense'. Sometimes it's justified, but it basically leads to an excessively critical mind that most of a non-scholastic bend don't have. And also leads to missing out on potentially important stuff. There's stuff that becomes hard to recognise when you heart and mind aren't in proper sync when listening. And I say that from having a scholastic bent.

There must be some criteria lest we end up with great ambiguity and anything goes mentalities.

I am just as much as practitioner as I am a scholar, so I'm not a complete scholastic bookworm. However, I appreciate reasoned and well-defined guidelines with which we can practice, otherwise it is easy to become misled and come to erroneous views or ideas. Erroneous in the sense of blatantly wrong views which only perpetuate suffering.

shel wrote:Jundo has been banned from e-sangha and Zen Forum International, his priests are not recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association...

Well that is some interesting and relevant information that supports your personal concern about Jundo. But you do realise the irony is that if you hadn't posted his video here, nobody would have watched it and he wouldn't be here now supporting his position?

shel wrote:If being critical is an expression of hatred doesn't that mean Jundo hates what he's critical of...

No, it's just obvious that you have some personal problem with Jundo and what he says,

You say no but do not explain how Jundo's critiques of Buddhist doctrine and his fellow teachers and students are not hate based. By your logic Jundo must have some personal problem with Buddhist doctrine, and some of his fellow teachers who he describes as being "blind."

even though it's completely and totally irrelevant to your own life.

Well thank you for letting me know what is relevant to my life, Seeker, I appreciate it.

What are you trying to do here? Save his students from "faulty teaching"? How can you save his students if you can't even save yourself? Are you a zen practitioner yourself? Do you know what the zen precepts are? Specifically the one about abstaining from gossiping? How can you say what the proper Buddhist teaching is when you don't even follow it yourself?

Gossip? you mean like saying that other teachers and their students in your own tradition are "the blind leading the blind."?

shel wrote:Jundo has been banned from e-sangha and Zen Forum International, his priests are not recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association...

Well that is some interesting and relevant information that supports your personal concern about Jundo. But you do realise the irony is that if you hadn't posted his video here, nobody would have watched it and he wouldn't be here now supporting his position?

Why was he banned and why are "his' priests not recognised?

I'm sure that he'll be along to offer some sort of explanation himself. Hopefully he won't use any ad hominem fallacies in doing so.

And I don't get the irony. I do know that he seems to like the attention.

shel wrote:We seem to have had a misunderstanding, Gregkavaronos. "Buying" is an expressions that is sometimes used where I live to mean being in agreement with. As you say, what Jundo says does indeed "sit right" with you.

When people say "brought into" they generally mean "fell victim to" or was "sucked in by".

In my culture it's basically synonymous with believe, like "I'll buy that" or "I can believe that," etc. I suppose the context would suggest the degree to which something is bought into. In this case it is not clear the degree to which you buy what Jundo says.

Huseng wrote:Academic credentials are possibly a better indication of a person's quantified understanding of Buddhism. I don't say that because I'm a scholar myself, but simply because it seems to be the case most of the time. Academics who may not practice often display a superior understanding of basic Buddhadharma than a lot of practitioners. The latter might protest and say their understanding is based on practice, not mere books, and hence is superior, but at the end of the day the academic often makes a hell of a lot more sense (not always, but often I find this to be the case).

You do really. Scholars always have much more demanding criteria for what constitutes Buddhadharma and thus a much narrower frame for 'what makes sense'. Sometimes it's justified, but it basically leads to an excessively critical mind that most of a non-scholastic bend don't have. And also leads to missing out on potentially important stuff. There's stuff that becomes hard to recognise when you heart and mind aren't in proper sync when listening. And I say that from having a scholastic bent.

There must be some criteria lest we end up with great ambiguity and anything goes mentalities.

I am just as much as practitioner as I am a scholar, so I'm not a complete scholastic bookworm. However, I appreciate reasoned and well-defined guidelines with which we can practice, otherwise it is easy to become misled and come to erroneous views or ideas. Erroneous in the sense of blatantly wrong views which only perpetuate suffering.

Right view comes before right action bear in mind.

I know where you're coming from and I also know you are a devoted practitioner with very assured intent. Nevertheless, there are psychological consequences to having a scholastic bent and they are insidious because they reinforce themselves with really good and justified reasons. Your post here is actually a pretty good example: You accentuate the dangers of 'anything goes' and uphold right view as coming before right action. All good reasons and it's not difficult to find scriptural support for it either. It's a very efficient self-preserving mechanism. If your mind is smart, it might also perceive this in generalised terms along the lines of "well, of everyone followed this advice, we would end up with 'anything goes'.

But think about it for second - if, bearing only your own cultivation in mind, you actually ditched your scholastic knowledge and tried out 'ok, maybe coherence of view isn't very important and I can take in stuff more on account of gut feel than how it fits in with what I've learned about buddhadharma' - do you really think there is a chance you'd be misled and fall into all kinds of erroneous views?

I am gonna go out on a limb and answer for you: No chance in hell. Your accumulated knowledge isn't gonna just disappear because it's not in the driving seat and when it's so ingrained there are quite natural limits whereby one can open up one's critical faculties a bit and become more receptive to mildly questionable Dharma (as it appears to one's scholastic mind at any rate) without losing the ability to recognise what is clearly adharma or being able to sort out useful from non-useful on one's own terms through a more organic process.

Basically, when you have already soaked in study of the Dharma and have firmly integrated refuge, it becomes really hard to be led too much astray. Most of the important stuff that may need to be learned from study is also already properly soaked in after a couple of years of this. And there's a tipping point where the cons begin to outweigh the pros of such an approach and you risk alienating the heart of practise from the practise the head is engaged in.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hellI would endure it for myriad lifetimes As your companion in practice" --- Gandavyuha Sutra

Simon E. wrote:I have absolutely no dog in this fight...but it seems to me that any axes that are being ground are being ground by you Shel.

I merely offer Jundo the same critical eye that he offers Buddhist doctrine and his fellow teachers, etc. He just claimed in one of his last posts that some of his fellow teachers and their students are "the blind leading the blind." That's harsh. I would never say anything that harsh about him and his students. Yet I'm the one with an axe to grind?

Jundo has been banned from e-sangha and Zen Forum International, his priests are not recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association, and yet I'm the only one who is critical?

Its a matter of tone. He seems amused and spiky. You on the evidence of this thread..which may or may not be typical, come across to me as a person with anger issues.

" My heart's in the Highlands my heart is not here.My heart's in the Highlandschasing the deer."

Simon E. wrote:I have absolutely no dog in this fight...but it seems to me that any axes that are being ground are being ground by you Shel.

I merely offer Jundo the same critical eye that he offers Buddhist doctrine and his fellow teachers, etc. He just claimed in one of his last posts that some of his fellow teachers and their students are "the blind leading the blind." That's harsh. I would never say anything that harsh about him and his students. Yet I'm the one with an axe to grind?

Jundo has been banned from e-sangha and Zen Forum International, his priests are not recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association, and yet I'm the only one who is critical?

Its a matter of tone. He seems amused and spiky. You on the evidence of this thread..which may or may not be typical, come across to me as a person with anger issues.

shel wrote:Jundo has been banned from e-sangha and Zen Forum International, his priests are not recognized by the Soto Zen Buddhist Association, and yet I'm the only one who is critical?

gregkavarnos wrote:Why was he banned and why are "his' priests not recognised?

Hi,

Well, that is worth a small comment.

I was banned from E-Sangha because it was, well, E-Sangha. In fact, I believe that half the people here at Dharma Wheel may have been banned at one time from E-Sangha, by perhaps the other half of the people here at Dharma Wheel. However, it appears that the atmosphere here at Dharma Wheel is a bit more balanced, allowing civil yet open discussion.

I resigned (I was not banned, though it was rather mutual) from ZFI because I ran into trouble with the owners there who did not care for my critical style on certain topics, pretty much the very same essays and opinions I posted (or Shel has posted) in this very thread in fact (same cause at E-Sangha too). I also wrote this to our Treeleaf Sangha about it ...

Let me add that ZFI has some lovely folks [they are all very very good and well intended people at ZFI, and they are doing wonderful work there for preserving the Dharma.], but there are also some problems.

After the Fukushima accident (just 100 miles north of my house in Ibaraki Japan, which is not too far when it comes to nuclear meltdown) I ran into problems with some of the ZFI administrators who were (and are still) posting often very extreme, one-sided and exaggerated (some just baseless, more than one can only be described as "wacky") reports founded on rumors, questionable scientific sources and writers with an overt anti-nuclear political agenda that seem to be far exaggerating the otherwise very, very serious situation here in Japan. I would usually point out the most extreme cases, and link to more respected sources. There are so many crazies and wingnuts (left and right) filling the blogosphere with quack science, panic and supposition, political agendas, pre-packaged conclusions, and the like ... misquoting and twisting the facts ... that I feel it my obligation to point that out (since I have to live in the middle of all this). Here are some examples ...

I consider myself an "open minded skeptic" on UFOs, physical evidence for rebirth and the like ... but also critical of puff, snake oil and pseudo-science. That did not set me off very well with the main administrator.

Likewise, any discussion of the old chestnut of "Shikantaza and Koan Zazen" is a minefield there, no matter how one bends over backwards to say that they are both beautiful practices.

FInally, a series I wrote critical of some (just some) aspects of monastic practice bothered a moderator there, a Soto priest ... who did not like very much what I had to say on that and related issues. For example, I wrote an essay posing the questions ...

Have monasteries, throughout their history, been (not just necessarily exclusive in order to maintain levels of spiritual practice) but -too exclusive- in their availability to those who may wish to enter and undertake the Dharma? Although monasteries serve a function in training the next generation of gifted Teachers ... have they, in fact, excluded many more individuals who would be gifted Teachers but could not enter the monasteries for social, political, gender or economic reasons? Rather than admitting those who should be there, have they tended to admit those with the political and social connections, and (even today) economic means to be there? Have they tended to admit, not just the many great talents and serious "seekers", but also a disproportionate number of folks who are there for the wrong reasons or should not be there?

In anything I wrote, however, I was never disparaging of people ... and never said "my way or the highway" ... even though I could be very critical of ideas while honest in offering an opinion. But after awhile of all my questioning and honest writing, they limited my privileges to post there. The one thing I could do before leaving was to change my avatar to this ...

And on the SZBA, well, that is another can of worms. You can read the short version here over at ShambhalaSun ...

Priest/Teacher at Treeleaf Zendo, a Soto Zen Sangha. Treeleaf Zendo was designed as an online practice place for Zen practitioners who cannot easily commute to a Zen Center due to health concerns, living in remote areas, or work, childcare and family needs, and seeks to provide Zazen sittings, retreats, discussion, interaction with a teacher, and all other activities of a Zen Buddhist Sangha, all fully online. The focus is Shikantaza "Just Sitting" Zazen as instructed by the 13th Century Japanese Master, Eihei Dogen. http://www.treeleaf.org